List of figures
Figure 2.1
A (hypothetical) network of argument structure constructions
Figure 2.2
Multidimensional similarities between the caused-motion and the resultative construction
Figure 2.3
The caused-motion (CM) and the resultative (RES) construction emerge from clusters of similar subpatterns at lower levels of schematicity
Figure 2.4
Similarities at higher and lower levels of schematicity may give rise to additional super- and subschemas (RES
wide = “resultative in the wide sense”)
Figure 2.5
Horizontal representation of the similarities between caused-motion (CM) and resultative (RES) subtypes
Figure 2.6
Vertical representation of the similarities between caused-motion (CM) and resultative (RES) subtypes (RES
wide = “resultative in the wide sense”)
Figure 2.7
Schematic representation of similarities and differences between alternating argument structure constructions
Figure 2.8
Similarities and differences between the double-object and the
to-dative construction
Figure 2.9
Schematic representation of similarities and differences between homonymous constructions and between polysemous constructions (additional features of the latter in square brackets)
Figure 2.10
Similarities and differences between the transfer and the benefactive double-object construction
Figure 2.11
Similarities and differences between the resultative and the object-oriented depictive construction
Figure 2.12
Schematic representation of similarities and differences between constructions that are partially similar in form
and function
Figure 2.13
Similarities and differences between the
to-dative and the
for-dative construction
Figure 2.14
Similarities and differences between the
to-dative and the (locative) caused-motion construction
Figure 2.15
Similarities and differences between the caused-motion and the resultative construction, including their potential metaphorical asymmetry
Figure 3.1
Potential within-construction priming effects in experiments that use the same constructions as primes and targets
Figure 3.2
Potential cross-constructional priming effects in experiments that use different constructions as primes and targets
Figure 3.3
Potential effects of within-construction
and cross-constructional priming in experiments that use the same constructions as primes and targets
Figure 5.1
Sample trial in the standard maze task
Figure 5.2
Model estimates of log10-transformed response times for resultative targets (left) and depictive targets (right) depending on the prime construction in Experiment 1
Figure 5.3
Sample trial in the modified maze task
Figure 5.4
Model estimates for the proportion of depictive responses after resultative, depictive and unrelated primes in Experiment 2 (only for highly acceptable targets)